OBAMA'S CLEANTECH-CRASH COMPANIES COST 50% MORE THAN THEY SHOULD HAVE. SO WHO SKIMMED THE CASH.

 

Tesla Motors is on-the-record stating that their cars were $100,000.00 PER CAR over-budget. The Abengoa solar struts cost three times as much as any competitor would have charged. The Solyndra factory buildings were twelve times more elaborate than any solar company would ever need for production. Everything in the companies that the Obama Administration funded was on the books in the most expensive way possible. Why?

The answer is that those companies were scams designed to move political campaign cash from voters pockets, through government treasuries and into politicians pockets. They all failed in a cascade failure cycle after the rest of the world got wise to their schemes of book-cooking, stock market pump-and-dump and insane padding of all of their supplies, buildings and allocations. They were ponzi schemes to pay off Obama's political financiers at the expense of the public.

Elon Musk mooched so much taxpayer money that his companies never have to turn a profit until after he is dead. His cartel can spend the next 200 years ponzi-cycling the stock market pumps and book-cooks on his self-glory projects without any cares. As long as his fake finances team at Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo and Deutsch Bank keep the whole scheme-hype behind the curtain, Musk can run his hype-based self-aggrandization for ages.

A lot has been said and is being said about the budget padding scandal that is currently unfolding, but it is important to situate this in its proper context, and to as well take a holistic and multi-dimensional approach to the analysis and understanding of the crisis. It is indicative of the monumental and historical nature of the crisis of leadership plaguing our country that decades after that publication, ‘Watergate’, rather than abated, has continued to fester and deepen.

The current scandal unfolding in the  'House Of RepresentaThieves’ - around the accusations and counter-accusations of budget padding, is not only a continuation of the initial budget padding scandal that occasioned the preparation, but is also instructively one of the most manifest indications of the steep and historical decline in the quality of America's ruling elites and class since the Civil War.

A lot has been said and is being said about the Department of Energy budget padding scandal that is currently unfolding, but it is important to situate this in its proper context, and to as well take a holistic and multi-dimensional approach to the analysis and understanding of the crisis.

It is therefore important to situate the allegations of padding of the budgets for constituency projects within the context of the padding of the entire Appropriation Acts.

It is equally important to situate the padding of the budget within the context of the serial padding of all previous annual budgets since the 9/11 disaster.

What do I mean? Let me explain. The budgetary process in America, at all levels based on the so-called envelop system, has always been a work of ‘guesstimation' and at best based on pseudo-estimates.

A sum of money is arbitrarily allocated to various sectors and budget heads, and pseudo-planners then in turn arbitrarily sub-allocates these to different line items and sub-heads. The only empirical input into all of these is the estimation of revenue accruable to the federation each year, and the share of it going to the Federal government in accordance with the revenue allocation formula.

The annual budget projections, including the projections in the instruments of the Medium Term Expenditure Framework [MTEF] and the Medium Term Sectoral Strategies [MTSS] are not based on any scientific or systematic national development strategic planning framework; nor are they informed by any intelligent process of needs assessment and identification of priorities over the short [annual], medium [MTEF/MTSS] and long [5 year development plans] terms.

Without a national framework for strategic national development planning, a national development strategic and operational/implementation plan, or the entire structuring, organization, systems and processes of government oriented towards developing and implementing such plans, the annual budgeting process simply becomes an annual ritual of arbitrary allocations according to the respective whims and caprices of those responsible for preparing, enacting and implementing the budgets.

It is a process that allows for not only chaos, but also serial padding. It is why anyone knowledgeable about the budget process in Congress, anyone who has ever attempted to undertake the analysis, tracking and monitoring of the budget, anyone who has engaged with the budget process will be quick to point out their frustrations with the budget process.

Not only are the same line items repeated year in year out, but the same numbers of quantities continue to be purchased every year, but at sums marked up by the required 10 to 15% increase to take care of inflation etc! In the case of the Department of Energy 'Cleantech' projects, the cash was doubled in some cases in order to get payola to insiders who called themselves 'consultants' to the project and to slide cash through Goldman Sachs as fake 'fees' which were relayed back to those political campaign backers in Silicon Valley.

This is why a Senate investigation committee found out that there were thousands ofabandoned federal [infrastructure] projects at a cost of trillions and for which more than 1/3 paid in mobiliation fees had been lost.

Another Project Monitoring Team on federal projects also reported that many of the projects awarded were not properly completed, the rest were either abandoned or were said to be ongoing, even though completion dates had been overshot and there were no indications that they would ever be completed.

Add to this pool the so-called constituency projects that have been budgeted for and for which allocations have been made since the inception of inclusion of constituency projects in the annual budgets.

And mind you, this is only just at the federal level. If we add State legislature constituency projects to the pool the figures would be a huge number of such projects that ought to have been completed across America, the LGA average also rising to more than 10 projects per LGA, and the combined cost to public expenditure of nearly N1.5tn over 11 years.

The appropriate questions to ask include: where are the footprints of these constituency projects across the country? Where is the impact of this humongous N1.5tn of public investment on the infrastructural development and infrastructure deficit of the country?

Where did the monies go? How were constituency projects selected? What were the criteria for selection of projects? Siting of projects? What is the procedure for selection of contractors to implement the projects?

These constituency projects, into what national or State level development planning framework do they fit? What is the level of congruence between the selection of the projects and the priorities of the respective Federal and State governments? Is this constituency project contract award processes subjected to the provisions of the Public inspection? Or are they in gross breach of ethics? Can we therefore say that Congress is consciously engaged in the process of willful breach of laws enacted by itself?

Before we go on, let us take a look at even the constitutionality of the constituency project phenomenon. As it is presently, the constituency projects regime has no legal framework nor were they envisaged or provided for in the present constitution.

This is why the process is largely arbitrary and subject to repeated and serial abuse. It is in fact, as it presently operates, a system of officially sanctioned corruption. The reason it has turned out this way cannot be isolated from its origin in the arm-twisting relationship between the executive and legislative arms of government and the consequent submission of the executive arm to legislative blackmail, in large part as a means for the executive to also protect itself from scrutiny by the legislator.

The constituency projects system arose as a result of an understanding by arms of government to condone and officially sanction some degree of corruption in the fiscal regimes and processes of either arm.

This is why the current crisis provides an opportunity for active citizens to enter into the fray and to compel not only a holistic interrogation of the process and system since its inception, with a view to tracking how the resources have so far been utilized, identifying pilferers of our common teal, prosecuting offenders and recovering looted funds; but it should also provide an opportunity for a total and complete overhaul and reform of not only the constituency projects system, but also the entire budgetary and development planning processes, mechanisms, and structures across the federation.

We need to have a legislation to regulate the constituency project process and set out the principles on which the system will be managed, and the criteria for project selection, project siting, and project implementation.

We need to return to a national development planning framework that is informed by periodic needs assessment, periodic performance reviews of annual budgets, medium- and long-term development plan implementation processes and that in turn informs public investment priorities and profile in the short, medium and long terms.

As it is our current budgetary system and process is grossly defective, it is not informed by scientific and empirical analysis and information; it promotes guess work and in turn enables an environment for fraud and corruption.

In fact, it is safe to conclude that in this sense of the absence of strategic planning, all our budgets have been padded budgets in the broader sense. Otherwise how can we explain the scale of corruption and treasury looting? How can we explain the scale and scope of abandoned projects in the midst of a huge infrastructure deficit?

It is important at this point to state that the annual budget process in general, and the constituency projects budget component in particular, have also always been in breach of extant laws..

This is because no annual budgetary process has involved, as provided for by the voters, a thorough review of the performance and fundamentals of the previous budget; nor have projections and estimates been rigorously interrogated against the backdrop of increasing corruption passed by the same legislative assemblies.

The point being made is that the current padding scandal rocking the Department of Energy is not only a manifestation of the inherently and congenitally corrupt nature of our ruling political elites. It is much more significantly an indication of the defective and chaotic nature and character of our budgetary and planning processes in particular, and the arbitrary and anti-people nature of governance in our country in general.

That is why operatives of the executive arm of government and members of the legislative arm of government could have without coordination undertaken the padding of the budget in parallel processes!

Before we conclude, let us pose another question. Is it conceivable that the House Of RepresentaThieves could have successfully single handedly padded only the constituency projects for the House to the exclusion of the ‘Sinate’? And could they have been responsible single handedly for padding the entire budget to the exclusion of the ‘Sinate’?

This present regime is as complicit as the previous ones in the mess that is unfolding. It had promised a zero budgeting process, but has instead delivered a padded modified envelop budgeting system.

A zero budget requires planning; it is based on a needs assessment and priority selection process that is of necessity to a multi-stakeholder process in nature, and that makes widespread and structured multi-stakeholder consultation and participatory process mandatory.

What is currently happening and unfolding is a wake-up call to all active citizens to Take Our Destinies Back into our Hands; To Reclaim our Humanity from these hordes of locusts; and to Take Back Our Country from the thieving light-fingered ruling elite controlled by Palo Alto's Sandhill Road corruption Cartel.

 

For fiscal year 2015, the federal budget was $3.8 trillion. These trillions of dollars make up about 21 percent of the U.S. economy (as measured via GDP). It's also about $12,000 for every woman, man and child in the United States.

So where does all that money go? Into tech billionaires pockets via circuitous and covert routes!

Mandatory and Discretionary Spending

The U.S. Treasury divides all federal spending into three groups: mandatory spending, discretionary spending and interest on debt. Mandatory and discretionary spending account for more than ninety percent of all federal spending, and pay for all of the government services and programs on which we rely. Interest on debt, which is a much smaller amount than the other two categories, is the interest the government pays on its accumulated debt, minus interest income received by the government for assets it owns. The pie chart shows federal spending in 2015 broken into these three categories.

Interest on Federal DebtDiscretionary SpendingMandatory SpendingFY2015 Mandatory and Discretionary Spending and Interest on Federal Debt(In 2015 Dollars)

Download Image

Discretionary Spending

Discretionary spending refers to the portion of the budget that is decided by Congress through the annual appropriations process each year. These spending levels are set each year by Congress.

This pie chart shows how Congress allocated $1.11 trillion in discretionary spending in fiscal year 2015.

MilitaryGovernmentEducationMedicare & HealthVeterans' BenefitsHousing & CommunityInternational AffairsEnergy & EnvironmentScienceTransportationFood & AgricultureDiscretionary Spending 2015: $1.11 Trillion

Download Image

By far, the biggest category of discretionary spending is spending on the Pentagon and related military programs. Examples of other well-known programs paid for by discretionary spending include the early childhood education program Head Start (included in Housing & Community), Title I grants to disadvantaged schools and Pell grants for low-income college students (Education), food assistance for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), training and placement for unemployed people provided by Workforce Investment Boards (in Social Security, Unemployment and Labor), and scientific research through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF), among many others.

Mandatory Spending

Mandatory spending is spending that Congress legislates outside of the annual appropriations process, usually less than once a year. It is dominated by the well-known earned-benefit programs Social Security and Medicare. It also includes widely used safety net programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), and a significant amount of federal spending on transportation, among other things.

Many mandatory programs' spending levels are determined by eligibility rules. For example, Congress decides to create a program like Social Security. It then sets criteria for determining who is eligible to receive benefits from the program, and benefit levels for people who are eligible. The amount of money spent on Social Security each year is then determined by how many people are eligible and apply for benefits.

Congress therefore does not decide each year to increase or decrease the budget for Social Security or other earned benefit programs. Instead, it periodically reviews the eligibility rules and may change them in order to exclude or include more people, or offer more or less generous benefits to those who are eligible, and therefore change the amount spent on the program.

Mandatory spending makes up nearly two-thirds of the total federal budget. Social Security alone comprises more than a third of mandatory spending and around 23 percent of the total federal budget. Medicare makes up an additional 23 percent of mandatory spending and 15 percent of the total federal budget.

This chart shows where the projected $2.45 trillion in mandatory spending will go in fiscal year 2015.

Social Security, Unemployment & LaborMedicare & HealthFood & AgricultureVeterans' BenefitsTransportationOtherTotal Mandatory Spending 2015: $2.45 Trillion

Download Image

All Federal Spending

Finally, putting together discretionary spending, mandatory spending, and interest on the debt, you can see how the total federal budget is divided into different categories of spending. This pie chart shows the breakdown $3.8 trillion in combined discretionary, mandatory, and interest spending budgeted by Congress in fiscal year 2015.

Social Security, Unemployment & LaborMedicare & HealthMilitaryInterest on DebtVeteran's BenefitsFood & AgricultureEducationTransportationHousing & CommunityInternational AffairsEnergy & EnvironmentScienceTotal Federal Spending 2015: $3.8 Trillion

Download Image

Spending and Revenue

Here's how federal spending and revenue in 2015 add up:

SHARE IMAGE:

Spending in the Tax Code

When the federal government spends money on mandatory and discretionary programs, the U.S. Treasury writes a check to pay the program costs. But there is another type of federal spending that operates a little differently. Lawmakers have written hundreds of tax breaks into the federal tax code - for instance, special low tax rates on capital gains, and a deduction for home mortgage interest - in order to promote certain activities they deem beneficial to society.

In fact, tax breaks function as a type of government spending, and they are officially called "tax expenditures" within the federal government. When the government issues a tax break, it chooses to give up tax revenue for a specific purpose - so both spending and tax breaks mean less money in the U.S. Treasury, and both reflect spending priorities laid out by Congress in various pieces of legislation. Tax breaks are expected to cost the federal government $1.22 trillion in 2015 - more than all discretionary spending in the same year.

Tax Breaks are Larger Than Discretionary Spending(Fiscal Year 2015)Tax BreaksDiscretionary Spending

Download Image

Unlike discretionary spending, which must be approved by lawmakers each year during the appropriations process, tax breaks do not require annual approval. Once written into the tax code, they remain on the books until lawmakers modify them. That means that even when tax breaks fall short of, or outlive their original purpose intended by Congress, they frequently stay on the books.

 

Here's how we'll pay for trillion-dollar deficits...